I know the Meostar is more expensive than the Artemis, but can anybody elucidate the major differences and if there is a major difference in the optical quality? I hear more and more about the Meopta scopes and have gotten interested in them. I love the scopes I own, but I am always looking for something different. Thanks for the help in advance.

I have looked through both and to be honest, there is not alot of difference to my eyes!...........Although very good glass, I have two objections with the Meopta scopes!! First is the excessive weight and the second is their, compared to most scopes including the 4200, their shorter eye relief.............No doubt, they are very well built, but they would not be condusive for hunters interested in keeping the weight of their rigs down!

How much eye relief do you need? I shoot a 5-R MilSpec .308 and have a Meopta Meostar 4-16x44 up top. I believe it is one of the clearest and brightest tactical scopes you can buy, especially for the money. It performs very near or equivalent to (better than, maybe?) Swarovski levels IMHO. It blows Nikon, Burris, Leupold, Bushnell, Millett, etc. off the planet; a whole different league. I have never gotten magnum eyebrow with it, and all my buddies who don't already have one continually try to steal it. Granted, the 5-R is a heavy rifle, so let's take a look at a light one: I also have a 3-12x56 R1 on a Remington model seven SS Magnum 7mm SAUM. That little baby kicks like a mule with big bullets, but still no problem with eye relief and the scope is listed at only 3.2". Maybe the extra couple of ounces helps out a little on this rifle. Anyway, I believe Meopta is conservative in their specification print, unlike so many of their competitors. BTW, the 3-12 is lighter and shorter than the Zeiss Conquest. Brighter and clearer, too, and both are on 30mm aluminum tubes. And the Meostar is lots less. A word of caution: once you drive down Meopta Boulevard you may feel compelled to upgrade a few of your other scopes... Drummer

I draw the line myself at 3.5" minimum. They may have slightly better optics than a conquest (that seems to be a matter of personal opinion however) they are both rated at 7.5 on the optics scale, Zeiss does the coatings on their lenses in fact. 3.2" doesn't do it for me.....

Focus

I Can See Clearly Now......<><

If Accurate rifles Are Interesting.....I've Got Some Savages That Are Getting Mighty Interesting......

With FOUR INCHES of eye relief, I need to shove the dang scope all the way forward until it hits something so that the ocular end is flush with the back end of my bolt shroud! THAT would be just fine for a 340 Weatherby or a 375! But why on earth is everybody in the world trying to RE-INVENT the riflescope? Who needs FAT EYEPIECES? Is it too much trouble to unlock a locking ring ( 2 seconds) and turn an ocular till your reticle is focused ( maybe 20 seconds if you're dilly-dallying) and then tighten the ring again...and then LEAVE IT ALONE for the next ten years!?

NOW we got ANOTHER WRINKLE---SIDE FOCUS!! All of a sudden every shooter on Earth can't shoot a deer without a parallax adjuster--because every scope is now a 2X to 30X!!!

on the optics scale? And which testing lab takes responsiblity for what I am sure are purely objective ratings? Not marketing guys for certain. I mean, no self-respecting marketing guy would EVER put his name on something that has high margin just to sell it, would he??? Because I am a marketing guy and also a bit of a statistician, I never trust that kind of stuff in any business. Show me the data, and I'll consider it. But even great data can be twisted. Reminds me of when I was a corporate weenie. I asked out new CFO one quarter what he thought our EBITDA would be. He replied, "what would you like it to be?"

When it comes to rifle scopes, you have to buy what you like and can justify buying! I own several Conquests. I like them all. I just don't believe, according to the feedback that comes from my tired eyes, the optics are as good as my Meostars!

So, NCDrummer, do you think the Artemis has the same optical quality that the Meostar does and the only difference is one is made with steel tubing and the other is made with aluminum tubing. I am a pretty stout fellow and if you are in NC like I am, eastern part, we hunt stands, so weight, especially that small of an amount is not a concern. Usually 3 inches of eye relief is fine for me, as for some reason, I always tend to sit back further, narrowing the exit pupil and increasing the sharpness of the target once I am on target (same principle as a near sighted person looking through a small pinhole, it will improve and sharpen his distant vision).

You guys are getting kinky now. But the lips are pretty nice. Not yours, I am sure.

On the Meopta thing: I am not sure about the Artemis; all my Meoptas are Meostars. And I love them. Super bright and clear, repeatable, just plain excellent in every respect. I am in NC, and hunt a lot around the Piedmont area, as well as SC and MS. Almost all my hunting is in a climber, although I do get to experience "rich guy" hunting out of aerial condos a few times each year. When in condos I shoot the 5-R .308 with 4-16x44 R1. In climbers I usually shoot the 7 SAUM with 3-12x56 R1, because it's lighter and easier to handle. Again, I can't speak for the Artemis, but the Meostar is something to experience. Drummer

So NC when you give everyone your impression of the meostar vs the conquest its factual but when a collective of members impressions are referred to its unobjective. What labs are confirming your data? I would say all scope comparisons are someones or a collection of someones impressions not backed by any hard lab data. I don't however feel that SWFA skewers any data to make one brand look better than anothers as you seem to allude. The scale was built with imput from quite a few varied sources. Whether the meostar is actually superior to a conquest would be merely conjecture on varying testers parts. They are in the same league no doubt. I would still prefer the conquest if optically less with the stateside factories and service available and the better eye relief. We will agree to disagree.....

Focus

I Can See Clearly Now......<><

If Accurate rifles Are Interesting.....I've Got Some Savages That Are Getting Mighty Interesting......

the ONLY thing, if anything, i don't like about Meostar -vs- Conquest is the eye relief, but it's not been a problem for me.

you can flip a coin about meostar vs conquest, optically - sometimes the conquest seems better to me and sometimes the meostar seems better to me. bottom line, they are both optically fantastic - for the money it's hard to beat the conquest OR the meostar - the 3-12x56 meostar is one of the best deals going w/ the #4 reticle.

...and the only difference is one is made with steel tubing and the other is made with aluminum tubing. I am a pretty stout fellow and if you are in NC like I am, eastern part, we hunt stands, so weight, especially that small of an amount is not a concern.

I don't have any experience with Meopta scopes, other than looking through them inside stores, but I can comment on steel vs. aluminum alloy tubes. As you stated, the difference in weight isn't very significant, but one thing that may be worth consideration is finish durability. An aluminum tube scope will have a hard anodized finish, whereas a steel tube scope will be a sprayed and baked on finish. The anodized finish on aluminum scopes is a little more durable and scratch resistant than the painted finish on the steel tube scopes. If any of the finish on a steel tube scope flakes off, it can also potentially rust. This may not be a huge concern; if you're careful not to get your scope scratched up, the steel tube should be fine.

Ted

Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.

Yeow! I must have struck a nerve with the "optics scale" post!! And yes, my "old eyes" are bionically assisted and include both brightness and sharpness meters. In case you couldn't read between the lines, my post was LARGELY tongue-in-cheek. Gotta keep this stuff light, you see, for fear we would actually start believing one another! Peace. Drummer

Gosh. One more thing. My opinion, like most posters here, is unbiased. I don't care what scope anyone buys, or if they prefer to use receiver sights, or throw a boomerang for that matter! I don't work in the optics business. I do shoot a lot, and enjoy passing my experiences along to other shooters. Fortunately for me, lots of other shooters feel the same! I read and listen. I learn. I develop opinions when appropriate and post away. Now where are those lips? They're nice looking. Drummer

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum